Nelson Garcia v. Secretary, Florida Department, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Nelson Garcia. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16339

Date Filed: 11/03/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16339
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-21757-JAL

NELSON GARCIA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 3, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16339

Date Filed: 11/03/2017

Page: 2 of 2

Nelson Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of
his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On
appeal, he argues that the trial court erred at sentencing by not orally pronouncing
him guilty of attempted first-degree murder, and, furthermore, that the state failed
to prove, at trial, that he acted with intent to commit an offense of burglary within
a dwelling.
A state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive habeas corpus
petition must petition us for an order authorizing the district court to consider such
a petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such an order, the district court
is obligated to dismiss a successive petition, as the district court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245,
1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
Both Garcia’s initial § 2254 petition and his current § 2254 petition
challenged his June 2000 conviction for first-degree murder, burglary, and
attempted first-degree murder. Because he failed to obtain authorization from us to
pursue his claims, the district court did not err by dismissing them.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

2